1vs1 is the only game on CC where I have come away from a loss directly blaming it on the dice. The only one. I have played many large standards, dubs trips etc and while dice have been a factor (as they should be or this game would be quite dull), I have never felt my loss was directly due to dice.

My point is of course obvious...1vs1 is a game for masochists. Believe me I'm a calm player, yet even I was punching the screen playing 1vs1. Why? Because my strategy was entirely based on my dice working out in the early game. Therefore, the game was basically out of my hands. I felt that I was a passenger in my own game, desperately hoping my dice would be kind enough to lead me where I needed to be.

In my view that is no way to play the game. But I feel the OP must already know this inherent truth. Yet he keeps playing it. If he isn't a masochist then he is addicted to the rush of leaving himself bare to the vagaries of randomness. But either way he shouldn't complain about it here.

Personally, I like to limit the importance of random factors. That is why I play no cards, it is also why I prefer larger maps for trips. One can play games here that leave the dice in their proper place. So why apparently intelligent people continue to play heavily luck-based forms and then complain about it continuously leaves me, as it has for so long, mystified.

Streaks, streaks, streaks...they are part of what makes this game so fantastic. Dealing with them - and most of us have our own rather mystical methods - adds elements of faith and magic that has always placed Risk on a higher plane to me than chess. Streaks and our attitudes to them harkens back to a time before modern science and some might see the intellectual tyranny of proven facts. They are what gives this game its emotional quality. Currently I am intruiged by the concept of positive-thinking. Can I will my dice by some terribly ancient power to perform better than average? I certainly try. To an extent I am trying to use magic (through the use of incantations quietly expressed). Does karma affect dice? Can an incredible exercise of will-power? These are interesting questions of a profound nature.

Good post by Mr. C. I tend to favor playing 1vs1's, and the dice can indeed play a big factor (probably more so than with other settings), but I still like it. But it is fun to mix in some larger games with no spoils or other settings that limit the random factors like mentioned above.

AndyDufresne wrote:Good post by Mr. C. I tend to favor playing 1vs1's, and the dice can indeed play a big factor (probably more so than with other settings), but I still like it. But it is fun to mix in some larger games with no spoils or other settings that limit the random factors like mentioned above.

--Andy

Well naturally...

Btw I'm not trying to suggest that 1vs1 is not a perfectly vaild form of the game. Rather that by playing it one must accept, and one would have to assume enjoy, the fact that it is more luck-based.

It's so good to have you back Mr.C... your posts are always logical and well thought out.

And what you said is so very true... Why, I recently joined my 1st tournament, and I have seen for the 1st time ever just how critical those dice rolls can be. There is attack after attack made with very few troops, so a few bad rolls and you're done. In the 6p escalators that I have played for so many years, there is just never a reason to do that,,, and when you are attacking, it is with large stacks to steal cards.

Not to say there is no skill in these 2p vs 2p games, but does feel a lot more like a trip to vegas baby

AndyDufresne wrote:Good post by Mr. C. I tend to favor playing 1vs1's, and the dice can indeed play a big factor (probably more so than with other settings), but I still like it. But it is fun to mix in some larger games with no spoils or other settings that limit the random factors like mentioned above.

--Andy

Well naturally...

Btw I'm not trying to suggest that 1vs1 is not a perfectly vaild form of the game. Rather that by playing it one must accept, and one would have to assume enjoy, the fact that it is more luck-based.

Correct,I would add you need a highish level of emotional maturity to play 1v1 as the luck swings violently one way and another in this form.I have been verbally assaulted,accused of cheating,called offensive names by players too puerile to accept the vagaries of the game.

AndyDufresne wrote:Good post by Mr. C. I tend to favor playing 1vs1's, and the dice can indeed play a big factor (probably more so than with other settings), but I still like it. But it is fun to mix in some larger games with no spoils or other settings that limit the random factors like mentioned above.

--Andy

Well naturally...

Btw I'm not trying to suggest that 1vs1 is not a perfectly vaild form of the game. Rather that by playing it one must accept, and one would have to assume enjoy, the fact that it is more luck-based.

Correct,I would add you need a highish level of emotional maturity to play 1v1 as the luck swings violently one way and another in this form.I have been verbally assaulted,accused of cheating,called offensive names by players too puerile to accept the vagaries of the game.

Agree with Mr. C and Chang50. From time to time, I still suffer from frustration of not having things go my way in a way 1vs1, but I usually have enough other 1vs1 games going that allow me to feel like I'm winning more than I am losing (which I think is the case for my 1vs1 %, but I don't remember).

Mr Changsha wrote:1vs1 is the only game on CC where I have come away from a loss directly blaming it on the dice. The only one. I have played many large standards, dubs trips etc and while dice have been a factor (as they should be or this game would be quite dull), I have never felt my loss was directly due to dice.

My point is of course obvious...1vs1 is a game for masochists. Believe me I'm a calm player, yet even I was punching the screen playing 1vs1. Why? Because my strategy was entirely based on my dice working out in the early game. Therefore, the game was basically out of my hands. I felt that I was a passenger in my own game, desperately hoping my dice would be kind enough to lead me where I needed to be.

In my view that is no way to play the game. But I feel the OP must already know this inherent truth. Yet he keeps playing it. If he isn't a masochist then he is addicted to the rush of leaving himself bare to the vagaries of randomness. But either way he shouldn't complain about it here.

Personally, I like to limit the importance of random factors. That is why I play no cards, it is also why I prefer larger maps for trips. One can play games here that leave the dice in their proper place. So why apparently intelligent people continue to play heavily luck-based forms and then complain about it continuously leaves me, as it has for so long, mystified.

Streaks, streaks, streaks...they are part of what makes this game so fantastic. Dealing with them - and most of us have our own rather mystical methods - adds elements of faith and magic that has always placed Risk on a higher plane to me than chess. Streaks and our attitudes to them harkens back to a time before modern science and some might see the intellectual tyranny of proven facts. They are what gives this game its emotional quality. Currently I am intruiged by the concept of positive-thinking. Can I will my dice by some terribly ancient power to perform better than average? I certainly try. To an extent I am trying to use magic (through the use of incantations quietly expressed). Does karma affect dice? Can an incredible exercise of will-power? These are interesting questions of a profound nature.

You just restored my faith in humanity. or at least, my hope of finding something worth reading in a thread like this. Thank you.

AndyDufresne wrote:Good post by Mr. C. I tend to favor playing 1vs1's, and the dice can indeed play a big factor (probably more so than with other settings), but I still like it. But it is fun to mix in some larger games with no spoils or other settings that limit the random factors like mentioned above.

--Andy

Well naturally...

Btw I'm not trying to suggest that 1vs1 is not a perfectly vaild form of the game. Rather that by playing it one must accept, and one would have to assume enjoy, the fact that it is more luck-based.

Correct,I would add you need a highish level of emotional maturity to play 1v1 as the luck swings violently one way and another in this form.I have been verbally assaulted,accused of cheating,called offensive names by players too puerile to accept the vagaries of the game.

Agree with Mr. C and Chang50. From time to time, I still suffer from frustration of not having things go my way in a way 1vs1, but I usually have enough other 1vs1 games going that allow me to feel like I'm winning more than I am losing (which I think is the case for my 1vs1 %, but I don't remember).

--Andy

Don't get cocky just because you've leveled up now Andy !

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

AndyDufresne wrote:My 1vs1 % has been that way for a while I think, even before I had my recent hot streak.

--Andy

I'm not too fond of those 1v1's. 3 player games are more my type of games. I have a talent for making my opponents fight each other . Silently I might add. Not by words but just by troop placement and knowing when to attack. My win % is higher in 3 player games than in 2 player games. 57% in 3 player games vs 52% in 2 player games.I feel like I'm getting cocky myself here. You've smitten me with your bold statements Andy lol.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

Robinette wrote:It's so good to have you back Mr.C... your posts are always logical and well thought out.

And what you said is so very true... Why, I recently joined my 1st tournament, and I have seen for the 1st time ever just how critical those dice rolls can be. There is attack after attack made with very few troops, so a few bad rolls and you're done. In the 6p escalators that I have played for so many years, there is just never a reason to do that,,, and when you are attacking, it is with large stacks to steal cards.

Not to say there is no skill in these 2p vs 2p games, but does feel a lot more like a trip to vegas baby

This reminds me of when I played almost exclusively 8 man standard or 8 man dubs. Dice rarely if ever seemed a factor at all. Sure sometimes they would make a move more or less successful, but as I rarely attacked without double the numbers (usually large numbers) my aims were almost always achieved.

In trips, I increasingly focus on the DEFENSIVE rather than offensive dice. I am obsessive about never leaving open 1s (certainly facing their natural target..but even if not I try desperately not to) and am experimenting with the effects of shortening an offensive move, but gaining the benefit from the defensive 2s. For example, an 8 facing 1s could (assuming perfect dice and not rolling off of less than a 3) could take 5 territories leaving 1s. However, by leaving 2s in its wake it could but take 3. Of course sometimes (when in trouble) there is no choice but to do the maximum cut. Survival depends on it. But I am intersted in the defensive dice. How much harder is it for the opposition when they NEVER get to hit a 1? Conversely, I focus on hitting open 1s (and most teams leave them). So my teams hit 1s and they hit minumum of 2s.

I'm not aware of the exact numbers with regards to how often it happens, but I know from experience that it is not so unusual for a 2 to take 4 off of an attacker. Happens all the time. While we all get the yips on 1s from time to time it is far less common. As an example, in one of my current games pink laid a 5 on a 3 and hit out at a 3. He lost 5. That happens. My chap deployed 6 combined on a 5 and a 3. Facing only 1s his dice weren't all that hot...yet he still took 4 regions. And where he had to or could he left a 2.

So...'f*ck the Dice?' No. I think you have to make them work for you. Playing on a large map (say 2.1..which has always been good to me on so many forms of the game) I can absorb some bad dice in the first 2 rounds - when we are all throwing hopefully against 3s - and begin to catch up again as I nail the 1s and force them to hit 2s and 3s. I can arrange my forces so that not only are we hitting our man but doing so to strategic advantage. I can put the opposition on the defensive. If I lose I don't blame the dice..usually the opposition has come up with a better opening strategy and punished me with it. So many players find this impossible to accept..that the oppostion could have had a better strategy or better communication between the team. So they blame the dice. The classic CC delusion is 'When I win it is strategy when they win it is dice'. This is of course utter crap. Looking back on my trips losses almost always my head wasn't in the game properly. My opening strategy (which is my main job for the team..setting the first few rounds) was flawed. Whether I lost quickly or slowly was related to the dice for sure...but it was the strategy that let me and my team down. I accept this completely.

He didn't only went in over 1,3,17 breaking NA, he killed 5 more territories in NA. Ok, thats fine, we'll both deploy 6 next turn, I can work with that.. nope, he kills my deployed amount without losing 1, continues to take over NA. Alright, I can still fight back if I'm fast enough and break him before he starts, which I do, I have a 4 in Mexico city, if he only has normal dice i can break him again before he cashes in his next turn, no, perfect dice again, kills my 4 doesn't lose 1, and goes ahead to take 1,1,1,3 to take SA as well.

That was 3 turns in a row in which he had perfect dice, or maybe he lost a few armies. And I'm not talking killing 3,3 with a 4, no he killed 1,3,17,1,1,1,1,1,6,2,2,1,4,1,1,1,3 having depployed like 26 in those 3 turns, don't forget all of those territories he has to occupy, where he leaves a 1, it's not like a single 30 vs 45, nope.

And the dice aren't streaky?

It was beyond good luck, it was impossible. Yet it happened.

They say that with big numbers the dice evens up, well recently I attacked 62 vs 32 and ended up with 13.